similar to: [LLVMdev] range of Value's and codegening constant pools

dw <dw.dev.mailing at gmail.com> writes: [snip] > Everything compiles fine, but loading the pass in LLVM gives me the > following error: > >> /opt/llvm/bin/opt: symbol lookup error: ./build/lib/RangeAnalysis.so: undefined symbol: _ZN4llvm13ConstantRangeC1ENS_5APIntES1_ >> error: unable to interface with target machine > > I use LLVM 3.4svn on Ubuntu x64. >

Hi, In the document: http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html described example like: SparcTargetAsmInfo::SparcTargetAsmInfo(const SparcTargetMachine &TM) { Data16bitsDirective = "\t.half\t"; Data32bitsDirective = "\t.word\t"; Data64bitsDirective = 0; // .xword is only supported by V9. ZeroDirective = "\t.skip\t"; CommentString = "!";

Sorry, we really screwed up the server migration. Alive is now working again and should be fixed for good :) Permalinks are still missing; we are working on recovering those. Apologies again for all the trouble. Nuno -----Original Message----- From: Sanjay Patel Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Where did Alive go? I still can't use the web app - spins for

Hi Stepan, > Hmmm... why? because you basically want pairs (set, destination) where set could be a arbitrary set of integers. As in practice these sets are a union of a small number of intervals, the set abstraction should efficiently represent unions of intervals, but that's more of an optimization than anything else. Probably for the needs of switch lowering you will need to expose the

Hi, I have a question about ConstantRange::sub(const ConstantRange &Other) at lib/Support/ConstantRange.cpp:524. The code computes the new bounds as follows. APInt NewLower = getLower() - Other.getLower(); APInt NewUpper = getUpper() - Other.getUpper() + 1; Could someone explain this to me? I was expecting something like APInt NewLower = getLower() - Other.getUpper() + 1; APInt

Thanks, I think you've found a serious bug! Would you be willing to fix it? Please add a test to unittests/Support/ConstantRangeTest.cpp and then mail llvm-commits with the patch to fix it and add the test. On 20 June 2011 23:09, Xi Wang <xi.wang at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question about ConstantRange::sub(const ConstantRange &Other) at >

And now rise4fun.com doesn't work at all? ~Craig On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Alive is now working again. There was a migration to a new server. > Permalinks are still being copied from backup; they will work again > shortly as well. (I would probably not create new ones since they may get > replaced while the copy is in

Craig I know it's a pain compared to the web interface but Alive is pretty easy to install and run from a shell. John On 9/22/17 11:41 AM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: > And now rise4fun.com <http://rise4fun.com> doesn't work at all? > > ~Craig > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt > <mailto:nunoplopes at

On 22 June 2011 12:51, Xi Wang <xi.wang at gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. I will submit a patch. > > BTW, what's the difference between the bounds I was expecting > > APInt NewLower = getLower() - Other.getUpper() + 1; > APInt NewUpper = getUpper() - Other.getLower(); > > and the two you mentioned > > NewLower = Lower - (Upper-1) > NewUpper = (Upper-1) -

Hi Stepan, > unionWith result is differs from set union, since it produces single set always > while set operations may produce two sets. this is true, but that's inevitable if the result is to be a single ConstantRange. You can of course define methods that returns a pair of ConstantRanges and does what you want. But why do you need these methods anyway? A "switch" is

Sure. I will submit a patch. BTW, what's the difference between the bounds I was expecting APInt NewLower = getLower() - Other.getUpper() + 1; APInt NewUpper = getUpper() - Other.getLower(); and the two you mentioned NewLower = Lower - (Upper-1) NewUpper = (Upper-1) - Lower + 1 They look equivalent to me. Did I miss anything? Thanks. - xi On Jun 22, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Nick Lewycky

Well... each case is represented as pair<BB, vector<Range> >. Right? We need "union" for optimal case building. And we need support "difference" if we decided that some ranges or numbers in case will never used (in some optimization passes it happens sometimes). -Stepan 26.04.2012, 15:18, "Duncan Sands" <baldrick at free.fr>: > Hi Stepan, >

I've addressed a "TODO" in ConstantRange and several in its unit test by implementing a stricter "multiply" method (it had been returning a "full" set for anything that wasn't "empty", which broader than necessary) and updated the unit test to match, but I'm not completely confident that I understand ConstantRange and APInt and was hoping someone

Alive is now working again. There was a migration to a new server. Permalinks are still being copied from backup; they will work again shortly as well. (I would probably not create new ones since they may get replaced while the copy is in flux). Nuno Citando Nuno Lopes via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I'm investigating; thanks for the heads up. Sorry for the

Hi Duncan. I have strange problems with you mailbox, my posts are lost sometimes on this way. I just want to duplicate answer on your question in this thread: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120305/138785.html ConstantRange has a little bit another purposes. It is not a classical range. Yes it has Lower and Upper, but "sub" and "add" operations

On Jul 10, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Ryan Flynn <parseerror at gmail.com> wrote: > I've addressed a "TODO" in ConstantRange and several in its unit test > by implementing a stricter "multiply" method (it had been returning a > "full" set for anything that wasn't "empty", which broader than > necessary) > and updated the unit test to

Definitely have a look at the current analyses: - llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp - llvm/Transforms/IPO/InferFunctionAttrs.cpp Also, study the semantics of these attributes, starting with the docs: http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#function-attributes Also, grep the LLVM sources for test cases that use the attributes to see examples on how they are used for optimization. Finally, have a

Hi Stepan, > Hi Duncan. I have strange problems with you mailbox, my posts are lost sometimes on this way. OK, sorry about that. Do you have any details? > I just want to duplicate answer on your question in this thread: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120305/138785.html > > ConstantRange has a little bit another purposes. It is not a classical

On Mon, November 7, 2011 16:31, Eli Friedman wrote: > 2011/11/7 Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: >> I tried a small variation: >> >> >> struct S {  static const int x; >> }; >> template<typename T> struct U {  static const int k; >> }; >> template<typename T> const int U<T>::k = T::x; >> >>

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > We can do "add %x, undef" => "undef" because for any value of %x, we can > always find a value that when added to %x produces any value in the domain > of integers. > > This is not the case with floats since with some inputs, e.g., NaNs, we > are not able to produce some